nitromefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Nitrome Wiki
Blueboy on main page Santi, we should have talked about this before we added it or before we took it away, because both require decisions. We can't just bypass discussion by thinking something doesn't look right. But anyways, Blueboy is our mascot, and I think visitors will like the idea of a blue cuboy on the main page. He deserves a place there. 10:49, July 16, 2012 (UTC) :I removed it untill something is decided, and meanwhile that's being talked it's better to let the mainpage like it was before. And now, talking about Blueboy, I also think that it should be in the mainpage, but, not only to add it anywhere without reason, we should add it saying something, for example. Also, I think the image needs some fixes. Can anyone help? 12:21, July 16, 2012 (UTC) ::I definitely think the image also needs some fixes. Talk before putting things up A minor problem with editing the main page is people sometimes put up content that is undesirable by the admins. As this is the home page of the wiki, we should be careful with what we put up. What I'm proposing is that users talk about what they want to place on the front page before placing it. -- 13:13, July 16, 2012 (UTC) :That is okay with me, as long as we don't have to notify you for little things like spelling errors. 13:52, July 16, 2012 (UTC) ::I discussed it in chat with two admins, who agreed. Isn't that enough? We don't need a forum topic to add stuff to the main page. Several changes as big as Blueboy have been made to it even without notification. :: 14:28, July 16, 2012 (UTC) :::Ahhh Takeshi all those minutes wasted writing a message for nothing! D: (editconflict :P) Anyways, Blueboy should have probably received open discussion so that all the community could look and have a say in this. All users weren't in chat at the time, and chat probably shouldn't be the jump to adding content in the main page. :::>:( I can't even find my previous message now, and I barely remember what I said. Oh, something along the lines of you have to discuss what you add on the main page anyways, and you don't have to constantly remind admins of the edits you make if they're minor. 14:35, July 16, 2012 (UTC) :::Now I had an edit conflict! Part of me is laughing, the other is wanting to strangle the computer. Anyway, we should talk it over here, not in the forums (I think that was the main idea of what I said before). 14:40, July 16, 2012 (UTC) ::::Discussing each change isn't vital. As you said, minor changes don't need to be discussed with admins. But the problem is, how will each user define a minor change? I realize that adding Blueboy was more than a minor change, but since admins are 80% of who edit the page, I figured we wouldn't necessarily need a talk heading if I asked a few. I'm all for adding Blueboy to the main page, but I didn't just go and add him without some sort of permission. I did it mostly to save time for everyone, as discussing every point can waste time on minor things. :::: 14:53, July 16, 2012 (UTC) :::::That's fine. For me, a major edit is anything that would be noticeable on the main page, particularly a noticeable edit that is difficult to undo without the use of the rollback or undo button. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though everyone is okay with Blueboy being on the main page, it was just where he was put that was causing a disagreement. 19:21, July 16, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I am okay with putting the blueboy on the main page. And, I don't think we need a rule to define what a 'minor change' is. People can just use their common sense to decide whether or not to bring it up on the talk page. :I hotly disagree placing Blueboy on the main page. The colours for blueboy make him look horrible, and it is due to his horribleness I don't think he should go up on the main page. If someone were to fix him, to give him better colours, then I would find him okay to put up. Until then, I disagree with Blueboy being put up. -- 22:08, July 16, 2012 (UTC) :I completely recolored him. How does this look? BEFORE: http://images.wikia.com/nitrome/images/archive/8/8d/20120826203142!Bluboy.png AFTER: http://images.wikia.com/nitromefanfiction/images/c/c9/Blueboy_2.0.png 20:34, August 26, 2012 (UTC) :Looks epic. I wanna use it in place of all the other Blueboys!-- 21:21, August 26, 2012 (UTC) Banner colors I think that since our theme color is light blue, we should make the banners light blue also. To show what it looks like, I changed the "What's New" banner to blue, and I'll revert it once you've seen it. Do you think this is a good idea? 19:44, August 26, 2012 (UTC) :That looks like a nice colour for the banners. However, we should consult this with Santi before doing this to all banners. -- 20:07, August 26, 2012 (UTC) ::I'll say we keep some green livery on our main page. Everything in blue does seem somewhat drab. Having a Colour scheme with a few dominant colors makes for a more appleasing feel SQhi•'''(talk)Ruby 00:18, August 27, 2012 (UTC) :::I don't think that that pale green is dominant. The blue is more full and more dominant, I don't think it makes it drab. 00:40, August 27, 2012 (UTC) :I like the idea of the blue banners. They look better and more vibrant than the old ones (which are kinda faded and worn looking). 15:41, August 27, 2012 (UTC) ::How about Nitrome Wiki 2.1 Livery: Sapphire Blue and Emerald Green SQhi•'(talk)Ruby 17:12, August 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Examples? 18:17, August 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::Hello people, I'm back. About that, when I made the new banners, I used the default colours of the wikia banners, and I thought it was okay. Today, I've seen the banner made by Takeshi, and maybe it would be good to recolour the banners, but I think we should use a lighter shade for them, and we also should use different colours for the two types of banners. In a nutshell, if we're going to change them, we should think first about the correct colours. 18:48, August 28, 2012 (UTC) :::::It looks like there's too much blue on the main page. The right rail headings are already coloured blue, and I don't want them clashing with the headings on the left column. Maybe we can darken the original colour and add a bit more blue into it, but I don't see a need to go all blue on the main page. 17:27, September 3, 2012 (UTC) Fan-managed Will saying fan-managed on the front page be enough? How about making a short disclaimer page that expands on that, saying that none of the users here are associated with Nitrome? Then we can link the page from fan-managed, to make sure viewers know for sure what it means. 17:31, September 3, 2012 (UTC) :Good idea. 17:39, September 3, 2012 (UTC) ::Absolutely. -- 18:15, September 3, 2012 (UTC) :::I wrote a disclaimer, here. What do you think? 22:11, September 3, 2012 (UTC) :It covers everything (and more) about this subject. I'm fine with using it. -- 02:41, September 4, 2012 (UTC) ::Thank you for helping edit and expand it. I do have one issue: I do think, regardless of whether an employee of Nitrome creates an account here or not, that they are still to be treated equal as with any other editor when it comes to adding content. 04:19, September 4, 2012 (UTC) :::'Correction:' removing the last part that asks employees to make accounts. It's asking for trouble in the near future. We still want to be a verifiable source, and don't want to encourage the addition of content outside of an official Nitrome source on the Wiki just because "Nitrome says so." If an employee wants to make an account, fine. But I don't think it needs to be encouraged in the disclaimer. 04:23, September 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::Thanks RSK, I'll add more to it when I think of them. The template is fine, bit we should change admin to bureaucrat in the template. Moreover, it's time we move our discussion over to Nitrome_talk:Disclaimer . SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 07:45, September 4, 2012 (UTC) :::::Why admin to bureaucrat? I thought the only difference between them in terms of making decisions was that only bureaucrats decide whether an RFA is successful or not. I don't think it should affect decisions made by the community for policies and guidelines. Don't admins get to close discussions when community consensus is reached? 08:12, September 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Mainly because of the high importance and gravity of this document we are crafting. This is an official wiki document for every one who reads, edits and manages the wiki. This is why a bureaucrat should be the one to seal this document. It would be a bureaucrat's job to ensure an equitable closure to the drafting of this document. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 08:37, September 4, 2012 (UTC) :::::::I wish to say I don't agree, not because I am an admin, but because it has been done before without problems. Admins have been allowed to close discussions such as Forum:Capitalisation, which affects the way pages are titled, and Forum:A solution for fanart, which determines what images are allowed to be uploaded or not in our policy. Whether a bureaucrat or admin closes a discussion that affects policy does not matter, also due to the fact that most bureaucrats are also admins. :::::::It's no different between an admin and bureaucrat when it comes to deciding how to close discussions. They both still have to look at the community consensus to see if the community agrees on a decision or not. Usually, it should be done by an admin who is neutral on the situation. Also allowing admins to have the authority to close a discussion will increase the likeliness of there being one with a neutral perspective on the situation. Admins have always been allowed to close a discussion that is not an RFA, and no major problems have arisen from doing so. 17:11, September 4, 2012 (UTC) To the or not to the I think "the" was added before "Nitrome Wiki" before it got removed, but why should we be called ''the Nitrome Wiki as opposed to just Nitrome Wiki? 00:05, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :Because saying just Nitrome Wiki without "the" sounds strange. I work on Nitrome Wiki. Mat Annal likes Nitrome wiki. The biggest Nitrome Encyclopedia is Nitrome Wiki. See? The is needed. -- 00:10, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :Really? I've always said it without "the". It just makes it sound like we're the only Nitrome encyclopedia out there. I suppose we could say we're the only Wiki to be called "Nitrome Wiki", despite other Wikis out there, such as Nitrome Database Wiki and Nitrome Steamlands Wiki... 00:35, October 6, 2012 (UTC) ::??? The largest wiki is Wikipedia. Welcome to Runescape Wiki. I edit on Nitrome Wiki. Sounds fine to me with 'the' omitted. SQhi•'''(talk)Ruby 04:39, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :::Apparently, Wikipedia is not a Wiki...Never mind; it's not Wiki, but I guess it would be called a wiki...I have no idea what I'm saying. 06:28, October 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::Your point, RSK?SQhi•'(talk)Ruby 12:36, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :::::...I did say never mind. Anyways, there's got to be a better reason than "it sounds strange", because I've been referring to this Wiki as Nitrome Wiki without "the" and it sounds perfectly fine to me. I was hoping for some sort of grammatical reason. Maybe either or doesn't matter. 03:49, October 26, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I've always used the. 12:02, November 3, 2012 (UTC) Reset indent - This would sound strange, but I think that "The Nitrome Wiki" sounds more important than "Nitrome Wiki". 12:23, November 3, 2012 (UTC) :Without the "the", it sounds grammatically incorrect. Adding a the would be good, because if we don't add a "the", then we may leave a bad impression on people who use the name with a "the", as what will you think if you go to a large wiki and see that a single word is missing from their welcome? It kind of gives you the impression that they don't really care for aiming for proper grammar. -- 14:21, November 3, 2012 (UTC) :::I agree with keeping the "the". (I don't know if I am allowed to be part of this discussion, but I thought I'd put in my input.) As RSK mentioned before, we are the only wiki called the "Nitrome Wiki", so we are, technically, ''the ''Nitrome Wiki. Plus, as Nobody mentioned, it is grammatically correct. If we said that we were Nitrome Wiki, we would sound like we were using it as an adjective, because Nitrome Wiki indicates no possesion. It would be like someone asking you on your talk page, "Are you Nitrome Wiki?" instead of "Are you the Nitrome Wiki?". It would sound like they were asking you if you were a type of person, like "Are you awesome?". Adding the "the" makes Nitrome Wiki possesive. This also explains why "Welcome to Nitrome Wiki" sounds strange. In that phrase, Nitrome Wiki has no possesion, so it cannot be used as the subject, in which we are trying to make it be. To add possesion, we have a few options. We could say "Welcome to Nitrome's Wiki", "Welcome to the Wiki of Nitrome", or, and the one that sounds the best, "Welcome to the Nitrome Wiki". I know I kind of rambled on there about grammar, but I hope at least it cleared up some matters a bit. -- Ayernam (talk) 15:13, November 3, 2012 (UTC) ::::I see what you all are saying (and Ayernam of course you're allowed to voice your opinion). When I was first welcomed to Nitrome Wiki, the automated message called this Wiki "Nitrome Wiki" and not "the Nitrome Wiki". Likewise, Neutronized Wiki was addressed as "Neutronized Wiki" and not "the Neutronized Wiki". ::::A "the" satisfies the question, "Which wiki are you?" ("We're the Nitrome Wiki.") However, when "Nitrome Wiki" is also the name of the website itself. It is the name the founder gives when creating the wiki. Naming the wiki "Nitrome Wiki" would have been the equivalent of naming the wiki "Nitromepedia". We wouldn't be saying, "This is the Nitromepedia"; it is the equivalent of saying, "This is the Wikipedia". Wikipedia is the name of the site; they address themselves as "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia" on the front page. Nitrome Wiki is the name given to name this wiki, so if asked, "What is the name of your wiki?" or "What is your wiki called?", addressing the wiki without "the" in front of it satisfies that question. ("The name of our wiki is Nitrome Wiki." "Our wiki is called Nitrome Wiki.") ::::It's sort of like saying this: Wookieepedia is the name of the Star Wars Wiki. Wikipedia is the name of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Nitrome Wiki is the name of the Nitrome Wiki. That's why I see both sides as correct. On the front page, does the wiki make a better impression of introducing viewers to its name or which kind of wiki it is? The latter is already answered by the followup: "a fan-managed encyclopedia about Nitrome that anyone can edit." In that sense, I would keep it to "Welcome to Nitrome Wiki", but I wouldn't edit a page just to remove "the" from "the Nitrome Wiki" on each page I see. 18:02, November 3, 2012 (UTC) reset Firstly, Ayernam, your opinion is welcome and valued in community discussions, so do be encouraged to participate. Wow, this topic is turning into a discussion on grammar, form, style, image and branding. '''Grammar' Nitrome Wiki, these two words by themselves, already form a complete proper noun. Nitrome is not an adjective of wiki, else we may as well refer to this wiki as nitrome wiki, without proper capitalisation. Likewise, if we wanted to indicate possession, the proper form would be Nitrome's wiki. That is wrong too. Nitrome Wiki is independent of Nitrome Limited. As such, I would consider the possession viewpoint invalid. "Nitrome Wiki" itself is the name of our encyclopedia. When refering to proper nouns, other than cases where we use the to refer to a specific object, the can only be used on objects of which is there is one and only. The Sun. The Moon. The Earth. The Pacific Ocean. The Eiffel Tower. The Statue of Liberty(pardon me). Moreover, as Santi rightly pointed out, preceding a proper noun by "the" does indeed increase its stature. Compare Eiffel Tower versus the Eiffel Tower. As Ayernam pointed out, since we are indeed the one and only Nitrome Wiki, yes, we have the privilege of referring to ourselves as the Nitrome Wiki. In which case, whether we refer to ourselves as "Nitrome Wiki" or "the Nitrome Wiki" is more of a choice. Be glad we have that choice. Neither is grammatically incorrect. Imagine if I create a company, and I decide to name it Green Pear. When a delegation comes to my company, How would I introduce my company? :Welcome to Green Pear. :Welcome to the Green Pear. Neither is incorrect. Branding Thus, now the true issue is branding, how do we want to brand ourselves, what kind of image do we want. Yes, by referring to ourselves as "the Nitrome Wiki", we make ourselves sound important, grand even. Yet, it borders on arrogance. It brings with it the connotation that we are the only wiki on Nitrome out on the internet. As you enunciate the words, feel the stress on "the". Contrast with referring to ourselves as "Nitrome Wiki". It carries class, sophistication, and a quiet pride and confidence. We are Nitrome Wiki. You can almost feel an ® symbol at the end of it. Yes, there are other wikis on Nitrome. We are Nitrome Wiki, we identify with this name, this name is ours to keep, and we are proud of it. Welcome to Nitrome Wiki. Bye, I have to rush back to my very important examination coursework!!! http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/blueflake/images/4/4b/Oh_key.png SQhi•'''(talk)2000 edits 20:04, November 3, 2012 (UTC) :No replies? Anyone? SQhi•'(talk)2000 edits 03:36, November 5, 2012 (UTC) ::Calling for responses... SQhi'•'(talk)2000 edits 13:22, November 5, 2012 (UTC) Reset indent- I see what you're saying, SQhi, and I agree. Neither is really grammatically incorrect, although there are a few "syntax" errors, as you might call them, that make Nitrome Wiki on its own sound a bit.... wrong, somehow. I have been thinking about why it sounds wrong (and that's why I didn't respond right away), and I have a hypothesis of sorts. The reason the company Green Pear and the encyclopedia Wikipedia and the wiki Wookieepedia all sound correct is because of their names. In all of their names, there is no label, no definition of what they are. That's why you can say "Welcome to Green Pear", "Welcome to Wikipedia", and "Welcome to Wookieepedia" without it sounding weird, However, if I added labels, like this: Green Pear '''company', Wikipedia encyclopedia, and Wookieepedia wiki, now saying those phrases sounds odd. "Welcome to Green Pear company". "Welcome to Wikipedia encyclopedia". Welcome to Wookieepedia wiki.". All of those statements now feel like they need "the"s. "Welcome to the Green Pear company". "Welcome to the Wikipedia encyclopedia". Welcome to the Wookieepedia wiki." This is the exact same case with the Nitrome Wiki. We are labeling ourselves as a wiki when we say our name, so we need a "the" to make it "sound right". "Welcome to Nitrome Wiki". "Welcome to the Nitrome Wiki". Hopefully that may have made sense, because I think I just discovered the reason of why we (might, depending on future comments) need the "the" before Nitrome Wiki. (And isn't my sig awesome? :P ) -- 01:53, November 6, 2012 (UTC) DANGER: link to our incomplete disclaimer In the Greetings section, I just realised that "fan managed" is linked to Nitrome:Disclaimer. this is a potentialy dangerous move. I have since linked it to a new subpage such that only one section would be shown. SQhi•'''(talk)Ruby 17:56, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :I think we shouldn't link it to a subpage, but instead link it back to Nitrome:Disclaimer#Nitrome Wiki management, because nothing is wrong with that section of the page. 18:03, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :::That won't do. It's still a work in progress, we don't want visitors reading the entire disclaimer. That's why I created a subpage. So only that section(which is already true anyway) is in effect. i.e. Visitors would only read that section as the current disclaimer. SQhi•'(talk)Ruby 18:32, October 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::We should complete the disclaimer then, or remove the link on the main page. Wait, who added the link to the disclaimer, anyways? I don't recall adding it; I wouldn't have until the disclaimer was complete. 06:34, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :::::I figured at such a crucial time after the Shooter issue, we needed more than just "fan-managed" to show we weren't associated with Nitrome. I figured since the page wasn't making much progress, it might as well be put to some use. That section of the page is okay, anyway. 12:18, October 13, 2012 (UTC) MochiCoins discontinuation. I think the discontinuation is important enough to have a space on a slider. Tournament can be replaced as it has been quite some time since its release, Santi. At least it acts as an informative annoucement. In the caption we can mention the status, wheher the nochi features are now freeZ :I agree. Since this also affects the two games that use Mochi coins and Nitrome has blogged about the matter, it would make sense to display such news on the slider. 03:47, October 26, 2012 (UTC) ::Nitrome blogeed about it once, but they said another blog post would be released once they decide what to do with MochiCoins. It's better to wait to that blog post, and then, we can write in the slider the final decision. 12:46, October 26, 2012 (UTC) :::Yet, Nitrome didn't remind Nitromians regarding the discontinuation of MochiCoins near Oct 15. It would be considerate of us to point that out in a "slider annoucement style". Moreover, we can test out for ourselves if the MochiCoins features are still acessible and advise the Nitromian community accordingly. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 16:07, October 26, 2012 (UTC) ::::Nitrome answered to a facebook user on the facebook page. They said they will think what to do once they have enough time. 16:38, October 26, 2012 (UTC) New blog listing Wiki news Wiki related posts If space allows, we could consider having blog post listings for Wiki news on the main page. We can limit which users the blog listing takes from or the categories a user has to add to their blog post in order to show up in this blog listing. 20:30, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :Sure but that "Create a Blog Post" button may be used by malicious individuals!, but I don't know where it will go. -- 20:41, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :Main page still has space. 20:56, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Yep, it'll be a great addition to the Main Page. Should we let every user have a chance to feature their blog posts? It would also highlight the very active community we have here. I think that we can feature more than news in this module. Links to announcing blog posts can be added to our underused WikiNews. Seriously, I'm surprised how little used that useful section is. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 03:03, October 28, 2012 (UTC) :::I saw it on other wikis, but I thought all the blogs could be seen there. If we can add only important blog posts to it, I agree with adding it to the main page. 13:11, October 28, 2012 (UTC) Shameless self-promoting Could we promote Nitrome on the front page of Nitrome Wiki, perhaps in the form of a "Vote for Flightless" widget? VoteFlightless I think there is space for it on the main page, but where would be best to put it? Near the top, above Featured Article, perhaps? 02:00, November 15, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, there is a space below the greeting, reserved for special banners. The first heading of the left column and right column are purposely aligned for aesthetic effect.SQhi'•'''(talk)Diamond 02:15, November 15, 2012 (UTC) ::I'm in favour of putting this up. -- 02:23, November 15, 2012 (UTC) Time to play our best Wikia is currently running some sort of promotion for the holidays (as indicated on this blog post). So what is basically means is that Wikia places a banner at the top-right section of your main page, and this banner links to whatever Nitrome Wiki article you want. This selected Nitrome Wiki article then has a banner at the bottom of the page. All wikis that accept this promotion thingy will be promoted on Wikia's front page, the "appropriate hub pages" (in our case, video games), and on Wikia's Twitter and Facebook accounts. I was reluctant at first, because I didn't want an enormous banner up on the front page of the wiki that takes up most of the top of the page (apparently this isn't what they are doing), and secondly I thought wikia would be placing the "Explore more" banner at the top of the selected page. With the location of the banners ruled out (the location was my only concern), this promotion seemed like a good idea. If everyone is happy with this promotion thingy, I would like to promote the Cuboy article. The reason I want to is because Cuboy has made numerous appearances, yet he is not well known. Plus, he has never starred in a game, only made cameo after cameo after cameo, never getting his own game. Cuboy has also been around since Nitrome started up, but was only named and used more past December 2010. It is likely that Cuboy will house information that will be new to every user who visits the page. And if they already know all about Cuboy and his multiple appearances, then they can just go and look at all the pictures (assuming they haven't already seen that to). Thus, the Cuboy article covers something that is not well known about, and is filled with lots of pictures. So, who kudos the Nitrome Wiki's participation in this promotion thingy and having Cuboy as the selected article? -- 03:07, November 16, 2012 (UTC)